The initial mnemonic medium is implicitly authoritarian in premise. These mechanics:
I’d like to swing the vibe aggressively more in the reader-centric direction. This will be tough to do while maintaining other important properties of the medium. Expert-authored prompts really do contribute a great deal of value (The mnemonic medium supplies expert-authored prompts to remove the burden of prompt-writing). We want to reap that value (or perhaps even enhance it!) while also providing fluidity, malleability.
There are some relatively simple ways we might begin: readers should be able to disable or skip prompts that don’t resonate; readers should be able to make simple edits to authors’ wording; the embedded interface shouldn’t discourage people from reviewing only part of a page. All this will generate interesting signal for authors: The mnemonic medium can generate interesting author analytics
But I think we’ll have to go deeper than this. A few directions I find promising, which of course need to be fleshed out more thoroughly:
::TODO much of this section should be fleshed out in more elaborate separate notes::
See notes from Yusuf Ahmad on this tension, which he frames as a gulf between “industrial” educational architectures and social constructivist architectures: https://www.notion.so/Placing-Cog-Sci-ideas-within-a-broader-Learning-Architecture-fa69fc15ba9e41b8a2e136f7fbe0362b